State v. Echevarria, 2018 Ohio 1193

On December 2, 2016, Nery Echevarria and neighbor Michael Butler fought in Echevarria’s apartment; Butler sustained multiple stab wounds and required stitches. Echevarria also sustained cuts and bruises.
A grand jury indicted Echevarria on two counts of felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (A)(2)). She pleaded not guilty and went to jury trial.
State witnesses included Butler, a patrol officer and a detective; Echevarria testified in her own defense and claimed she acted in self-defense after Butler assaulted her. Witness accounts conflicted sharply.
The trial court instructed the jury on the elements of self-defense but omitted an express instruction that Echevarria had no duty to retreat (the castle doctrine) and declined to instruct on the statutory presumption of self-defense for unlawful entry.
The jury convicted Echevarria on both felonious-assault counts; the court sentenced her to two years community control. She appealed, arguing (1) the self-defense jury instructions were incomplete/incorrect and (2) the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Echevarria)	Held
Whether the court erred by not instructing the jury that defendant had no duty to retreat (castle doctrine)	Instruction was sufficient; duty-to-retreat was not a contested issue because defendant was in her home	Court should have explicitly instructed that under the castle doctrine she had no duty to retreat	No reversible error; court properly omitted a duty-to-retreat instruction because the record established she was lawfully in her home and the omission avoided confusion
Whether the court erred by refusing to give R.C. 2901.05(B) presumption of self-defense (for unlawful entry)	Presumption did not apply because victim entered lawfully at defendant’s invitation	Defendant argued that after rescinding invitation the victim was unlawfully present and the presumption should apply	Presumption did not apply where victim entered with permission; refusal to give instruction was not an abuse of discretion
Whether convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: testimony and physical evidence supported Butler’s account that defendant was the aggressor	Defendant: her testimony and injury disparity showed she acted in self-defense	Not against manifest weight; jury reasonably credited the State and rejected self-defense by preponderance of evidence

State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247 (Ohio 1989) (failure to instruct no-duty-to-retreat in a home-based confrontation can require reversal where facts are contested)
State v. Goff, 128 Ohio St.3d 169 (Ohio 2010) (self-defense is an affirmative defense to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (elements of self-defense described: not at fault, honest/reasonable belief of imminent danger, no duty to retreat)
State v. Dean, 146 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 2015) (appellate review standards for jury instruction errors)
Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standards for manifest-weight review)